Doesn't it seem like a NO-BRAINER to remove Lieberman from Homeland Security...

[polichick]

...especially since he's such a hawk when it comes to Israel/Iran??

A traitor to the party who's also a hawk, which doesn't help us secure this country? Why would Dems even consider keeping him?

[genna]

1. No chairmanship for Joe. That said how can you make an equivalence between a hawk, traitor and HS?

[polichick]

2. I mean he's been a traitor to the party and president elect and a hawk...

...when it comes to the Middle East ~ neither of which is helpful to the security of this country.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

3. Yes it is a no-brainer. nt

[opihimoimoi]

4. Get the HOOK...he is a TRAITOR...gave comfort and aid to the enemy...went to their NEST and spoke

ill of us....

Fuck him...

[goclark]

5. Bingo! Hello...Anybody Home?

Doesn't take a brain scientist to know JOE must GO!

[sofa king]

6. 57 Senate seats with three still in the air.

Lieberman could conceivably count as the 60th vote needed to invoke cloture in the Senate. So he's still important until we're sure that Alaskans are as foolish as they appear to be.

But if the number of Democratic (and independent) Senators turns out to be 59 or less, that dude needs to lose a job.

[DeeDeeNY]

7. He's done no oversight in 8 years.

For that alone, he should be removed.